Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
"30% in Tech"...according to PRWCX site (link), it's only about 15%
"+3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues" 3.63 / 5 months * 12 months = 8.7%
"Don't look now but a utilities fund I follow (UTG) is up 6.5% over the last 3 weeks." What is the correlation between UTG to PRWCX. UTG is a leveraged utility CEF fund, while PRWCX is a flexible allocation fund with 5.5% in utilities per the site above. BTW, YTD UTG made 7%, Google made 25%, PRWCX has more tech than utilities.
@FD1000 - The reference to UTG is that it is a utilities fund and the manager of PRWCX had recently mentioned that he was favorably inclined to utilities and adding to them in his portfolio. It was in no way, shape or form a comparison of the two funds. But I'm guessing that an astute investor such as yourself knew that and was trying to use the statement to somehow justify your post. Get it together.
@FD1000 - The reference to UTG is that it is a utilities fund and the manager of PRWCX had recently mentioned that he was favorably inclined to utilities and adding to them in his portfolio. It was in no way, shape or form a comparison of the two funds. But I'm guessing that an astute investor such as yourself knew that and was trying to use the statement to somehow justify your post. Get it together.
I get it but
1) As I said already the site shows utilities at 5.5% as of As of 4/30/2024(not long ago). When it gets to 15-20% let's talk, after all, if utilities are such a great bargain, Giroux as one of the best, would load up.
2) UTG is leveraged, do you think PRWCX uses leveraged?
3) Is your intention to follow PRWCX and do your own categories and timing?
Thanks but I do not see the platforms / brokerages where different classes are available to purchase. That was the useful information previously. While tickers for various classes is appreciated, we could get those also from the fund site. But I do not know how to easily find the brokerages where I can buy any of those classes, except to go to each of the brokerage websites and type in the tickers, and each brokerage has their own way of indicating whether the fund is available there or not. E.g., many times posters here post that a fund is available at Schwab only to find out later that it is available only through their advisory platform.
Not sure why Schwab is pushing more and more funds into their advisory platform. If I have to buy a retail class at Fidelity or buy an institutional class (even at low minimum) at Schwab advisory platform, the additional 0.25% ER for retail class (vs. advisory fees) seems worth it - I do not have to consult with another human being and pay less in the process.
There are days I feel like opening an account at Firsttrade, where there seems to be less friction to buy and a lot more funds are available than at the brokerages we do business with.
Yeah, I don't like 12b-1 fees myself. A 12b-1 fee is a marketing and distribution fee for a mutual fund. It's often used as a commission to brokers for selling mutual funds.
Thanks but I do not see the platforms / brokerages where different classes are available to purchase. That was the useful information previously. While tickers for various classes is appreciated, we could get those also from the fund site. But I do not know how to easily find the brokerages where I can buy any of those classes, except to go to each of the brokerage websites and type in the tickers, and each brokerage has their own way of indicating whether the fund is available there or not. E.g., many times posters here post that a fund is available at Schwab only to find out later that it is available only through their advisory platform. [snip]
I recall when Morningstar listed brokerages where mutual funds could be purchased. I logged into Morningstar Investing Center via my library to see if this data was available. I checked the Managed Investment Report, One Page Report, and Investment Detail Report for several mutual funds. Unfortunately, brokerage information was not included. Like you, I don't know how to easily find this data without going directly to brokerage websites.
Brokerages(at least the big ones) generally offer all available classes of a mutual fund because the distribution arrangement is at the fund company level(I.e. AQR Funds) and not at the individual mutual fund class level.
There are different fund classes (A,B,I,N,R, etc..) because of different cost and revenue models -- marketing, servicing, audience, etc.. Very simplistic analogy here is the healthcare industry. The exact same service(ambulance ride, CT scan, etc..) will have a very different cost depending on the profile of the payer -- Medicare, uninsured, United, Aetna, etc..
Institutional class ER(generally but not always I class) is cheaper than retail because it is much cheaper for a brokerage to service say a single $100M placement from an institution vs. a few thousand retail accounts that aggregate to $100M.
IF you want a fund NTF at a brokerage, you're likely going to buy a share class with a higher ER. This is to help the fund pay the higher shelf space fee for being offered NTF.
It doesn't really matter how the fund assesses the higher ER; what matters is only that it is a higher ER than the TF share class. Many funds get to a higher ER by charging a 12b-1 fee, but not all do. Some may charge a "service fee" without having a 12b-1 plan, so this fee is not shown as a 12b-1 fee. Rather it is buried in the "other fees".
Or the fund may simply charge a higher management fee for the NTF share class and then the management company "pays" for the shelf space (out of its higher management fee). You can see this with TWCUX (0.95% management fee) and TWUIX (0.71% management fee). TWUIX is available w/TF and a $500 min at Vanguard.
At many brokerages, TRP investor shares are available NTF without extracting a higher fee to pay for the NTF shelf space. The advisor shares (that add a 0.25% 12b-1 fee) were designed in part for brokerages that charged even more for NTF shelf space.
Years ago I invested in a TRP fund, advisor share class, at Citicorp Investment Services. Citibank required a $5K min (combined bank/brokerage) for free checking. i was willing to eat $12.50/year (0.25% x $5K) for the "free" banking services. I later transferred the shares to TRP in-kind and exchanged the shares for cheaper investor shares.
If Yahoo omits a brokerage and the fund is available at that brokerage, then I would be concerned about using Yahoo Purchase Info. Otherwise, it is the best we got.
YTD, 4.9% for PRWCX vs 10.17% for TCAF PRWCX has 63% in equities as of 4/30. If one put 63% in TCAF and bought very safe bonds / bills (or even MM type) with the remaining 37%, one's YTD return would be around 7.4%. Nearly 50% higher than what PRWCX gave. What is up with that?
Is the contribution from the PRWCX bond sleeve negative or its equity sleeve with legacy holdings just was not nimble? Is he overly concerned about the potential tax effects of changes to the equity sleeve? I see some equity holdings differences between the funds but figured no point speculating about the future.
PRWCX had inflows every month YTD, including in May. So, the affection for this closed fund has not waned and more than made up for withdrawals this month from @catch22 ! I reallocated 20+% of my PRWCX position, though not as profitably as Catch.
FWIW, both CBALX and FBALX match (+/-) the presumed 7.4% mentioned above.
Duration for PRWCX is 3.89. Is that working out for any kind of bond holdings this year?
I know a few, some in this forum, that do not have access to PRWCX but like the manager and have tried to create their own PRWCX by pairing TCAF with PYLD. PYLD has returned 2% 1.48% so far this year. M* shows PIMIX with Duration 3.55 and nearly the same TR. I own leveraged PAXS with similar Duration which made far in excess PRWCX YTD TR but that is probably a wrong comparison to PRWCX bond sleeve.
Bond fund investors here can get you other 3.5-4 Duration funds with 2+% YTD TR.
Duration for PRWCX is 3.89. Is that working out for any kind of bond holdings this year?
I know a few, some in this forum, that do not have access to PRWCX but like the manager and have tried to create their own PRWCX by pairing TCAF with PYLD. PYLD has returned 2% so far this year. M* shows PIMIX with Duration 3.55 and nearly 2% TR. I own leveraged PAXS with similar Duration which made far in excess PRWCX YTD TR but that is probably a wrong comparison to PRWCX bond sleeve.
Bond fund investors here can get you other 3.5-4 Duration funds with 2+% YTD TR.
I suppose that's better than nothing while we wait for Godot rates to drop.
However, M* is showing PYLD with a YTD return of 1.48. And it's about half derivatives, which do not inspire me with confidence.
You did get me to look at some other funds with longer durations. If I had been smart enough to buy FATRX on January 1, I'ld be up 2.53. Since I bought it, only the dividends are keeping my principal intact, so far.
@WABAC, I corrected my post for PYLD TR. Your # matches with Yahoo Finance and so M* # now must be correct. interestingly, M* now shows PAXS YTD TR at 16%. I remember last night it showed something like 8%. If it is truly 8% more, it is free money I did not have last night!
But you got my point.
Having said that may be PRWCX will perform better than its peers in June if the Tech trade and market takes a breather and the overweight HC outperforms. What stumped me was it underperforming. TCAF that much.
As an aside, it was impressive how SCHD performed late last week!
Comments
"+3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues" 3.63 / 5 months * 12 months = 8.7%
"Don't look now but a utilities fund I follow (UTG) is up 6.5% over the last 3 weeks."
What is the correlation between UTG to PRWCX. UTG is a leveraged utility CEF fund, while PRWCX is a flexible allocation fund with 5.5% in utilities per the site above.
BTW, YTD UTG made 7%, Google made 25%, PRWCX has more tech than utilities.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prwcx/quote
1) As I said already the site shows utilities at 5.5% as of As of 4/30/2024(not long ago). When it gets to 15-20% let's talk, after all, if utilities are such a great bargain, Giroux as one of the best, would load up.
2) UTG is leveraged, do you think PRWCX uses leveraged?
3) Is your intention to follow PRWCX and do your own categories and timing?
Thanks but I do not see the platforms / brokerages where different classes are available to purchase. That was the useful information previously. While tickers for various classes is appreciated, we could get those also from the fund site. But I do not know how to easily find the brokerages where I can buy any of those classes, except to go to each of the brokerage websites and type in the tickers, and each brokerage has their own way of indicating whether the fund is available there or not. E.g., many times posters here post that a fund is available at Schwab only to find out later that it is available only through their advisory platform.
Not sure why Schwab is pushing more and more funds into their advisory platform. If I have to buy a retail class at Fidelity or buy an institutional class (even at low minimum) at Schwab advisory platform, the additional 0.25% ER for retail class (vs. advisory fees) seems worth it - I do not have to consult with another human being and pay less in the process.
There are days I feel like opening an account at Firsttrade, where there seems to be less friction to buy and a lot more funds are available than at the brokerages we do business with.
A 12b-1 fee is a marketing and distribution fee for a mutual fund.
It's often used as a commission to brokers for selling mutual funds.
I logged into Morningstar Investing Center via my library to see if this data was available.
I checked the Managed Investment Report, One Page Report, and Investment Detail Report
for several mutual funds. Unfortunately, brokerage information was not included.
Like you, I don't know how to easily find this data without going directly to brokerage websites.
Brokerages(at least the big ones) generally offer all available classes of a mutual fund because the distribution arrangement is at the fund company level(I.e. AQR Funds) and not at the individual mutual fund class level.
There are different fund classes (A,B,I,N,R, etc..) because of different cost and revenue models -- marketing, servicing, audience, etc.. Very simplistic analogy here is the healthcare industry. The exact same service(ambulance ride, CT scan, etc..) will have a very different cost depending on the profile of the payer -- Medicare, uninsured, United, Aetna, etc..
Institutional class ER(generally but not always I class) is cheaper than retail because it is much cheaper for a brokerage to service say a single $100M placement from an institution vs. a few thousand retail accounts that aggregate to $100M.
It doesn't really matter how the fund assesses the higher ER; what matters is only that it is a higher ER than the TF share class. Many funds get to a higher ER by charging a 12b-1 fee, but not all do. Some may charge a "service fee" without having a 12b-1 plan, so this fee is not shown as a 12b-1 fee. Rather it is buried in the "other fees".
Or the fund may simply charge a higher management fee for the NTF share class and then the management company "pays" for the shelf space (out of its higher management fee). You can see this with TWCUX (0.95% management fee) and TWUIX (0.71% management fee). TWUIX is available w/TF and a $500 min at Vanguard.
At many brokerages, TRP investor shares are available NTF without extracting a higher fee to pay for the NTF shelf space. The advisor shares (that add a 0.25% 12b-1 fee) were designed in part for brokerages that charged even more for NTF shelf space.
Years ago I invested in a TRP fund, advisor share class, at Citicorp Investment Services. Citibank required a $5K min (combined bank/brokerage) for free checking. i was willing to eat $12.50/year (0.25% x $5K) for the "free" banking services. I later transferred the shares to TRP in-kind and exchanged the shares for cheaper investor shares.
At one point there was information on M* about rokerageavaliaility but then it dropped off, unless someone else can find it
Thanks, nice find!
Just checked Yahoo for two funds I own
Lists the minimum for PVCMX as $500,000 which is incorrect at least at Schwab and Vanguard
and $1,000,000 for RKCIX ( (wrong) and only our brokerages Schwab no among them
It als claims you can buy GCCELX ( GMO Climate Change fund) at Fidelity which is incorrect
I used the M* data frequently but found it was incorrect about 25% of the time
With an app it is pretty easy to search for a fund at the brokerage website
But don't expect perfection - the brokerage lists are often incomplete. It's more of a general reference. It's yahoo, after all.
If Yahoo omits a brokerage and the fund is available at that brokerage, then I would be concerned about using Yahoo Purchase Info. Otherwise, it is the best we got.
YTD, 4.9% for PRWCX vs 10.17% for TCAF
PRWCX has 63% in equities as of 4/30. If one put 63% in TCAF and bought very safe bonds / bills (or even MM type) with the remaining 37%, one's YTD return would be around 7.4%. Nearly 50% higher than what PRWCX gave. What is up with that?
Is the contribution from the PRWCX bond sleeve negative or its equity sleeve with legacy holdings just was not nimble? Is he overly concerned about the potential tax effects of changes to the equity sleeve? I see some equity holdings differences between the funds but figured no point speculating about the future.
PRWCX had inflows every month YTD, including in May. So, the affection for this closed fund has not waned and more than made up for withdrawals this month from @catch22 ! I reallocated 20+% of my PRWCX position, though not as profitably as Catch.
FWIW, both CBALX and FBALX match (+/-) the presumed 7.4% mentioned above.
2%1.48% so far this year. M* shows PIMIX with Duration 3.55 and nearly the same TR. I own leveraged PAXS with similar Duration which made far in excess PRWCX YTD TR but that is probably a wrong comparison to PRWCX bond sleeve.Bond fund investors here can get you other 3.5-4 Duration funds with 2+% YTD TR.
Godotrates to drop.However, M* is showing PYLD with a YTD return of 1.48. And it's about half derivatives, which do not inspire me with confidence.
You did get me to look at some other funds with longer durations. If I had been smart enough to buy FATRX on January 1, I'ld be up 2.53. Since I bought it, only the dividends are keeping my principal intact, so far.
But you got my point.
Having said that may be PRWCX will perform better than its peers in June if the Tech trade and market takes a breather and the overweight HC outperforms. What stumped me was it underperforming. TCAF that much.
As an aside, it was impressive how SCHD performed late last week!
When I sold SCHD I did a number of people a favor, including my wife. So it's a win.